DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 5S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1007
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
JRE .
Docket No. 1614-12
17 December 2012
Dear Siig:
‘This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United
States Code, section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 13 December 2012. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of
this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board
consisted of your application, together with all material
submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable
statutes, regulations and policies.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.
The Board found that the increase in your Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) combined disability rating from 20% in 1975 to 90%
in 2011 is not probative of the existence of error in your naval
record. Inthis regard, it noted that although the VA may raise
or lower a veteran's disability rating at any time to account
for changes in rated conditions, as well as add ratings for new
conditions determined to be secondary to a rated condition, the
rating determinations made by the military departments are
fixed as of the date of separation or permanent retirement. As
you have not demonstrated that you were entitled to a disability
rating of 30% or higher from the Department of the Navy when
you were discharged in 1975, the Board was unable to recommend
favorable action on your request. Accordingly, your application
has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel
will be furnished upon request.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have
the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by
the Board. Inthis regard, it is important to keep in mind that
a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official
naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice. .
Sincerely,
Dead!
W. Dean Pfeif¥e
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2796 13
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 5. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 January 2014. In addition, that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded you a disability rating for anxiety almost forty years after you were discharged from the Navy was not considered probative of error or injustice in your naval record because the VA acted without regard to the issue...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 08393 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 October 2012. As you have not demonstrated that you were entitled to a disability rating of 30% or higher from the Department of the Navy as of 24 February 1993, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 12128 11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 October 2012. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an offical naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 09513 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 October 2012. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 01369 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 December 2012. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | NR12995 12
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 7015S. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all materia submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Your receipt of substantial disability ratings from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) effective the day following your discharge from the Navy was not considered probative of the existence of error or injustice in your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00057-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 July 2007. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. You should note, however, that during the period when your name was on the TDRL, military retired pay entitlements were offset dollar for dollar against...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR51 13
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. That rating, which was established by Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rating officials and assigned by the Physical Evaluation Board during the Integrated Disability Evaluation process, was based on the demonstrated limitation of motion of your spine. Inthis regard, it is important to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 12878 11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 October 2012. In addition it noted that you could have been processed for separation by reason of fraudulent entry based on your concealment of what you believed to be a pre-service history of asthma. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00225 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 October 2012. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...